delete_component

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (delete) but gives no information about permanence, cascading effects on related entities (e.g., connections, flows), error handling, or permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap—an agent doesn't know what side effects to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with a summary line and Args/Returns sections, but it contains redundancy: the first two sentences repeat the same idea, and the usage instructions appear both in prose and in the Args list. It is not overly long, but not every sentence earns its place, so it only partially meets conciseness standards.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists). The description covers purpose, usage modes, and return format. However, it omits essential behavioral context for a delete operation—such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens to dependencies, and possible error conditions. Given the simplicity, a bit more detail would make it complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the single vs. batch modes and clarifying that 'id' is required for single mode. However, it also lists 'ctx' which is not in the schema, creating a slight ambiguity. The precedence rule (ids overrides id) exists in the schema, so no deduction for that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Delete a component from the architecture' with a specific verb and resource, and immediately mentions batch operations via the 'ids' parameter, which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools that likely only handle single items. The resource (component) is unambiguous and differentiates from other delete tools for connections, data stores, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: single item via 'id', batch via 'ids' list, and explains the difference. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource-specific nature makes the appropriate context obvious. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, but the core when-to-use is implied strongly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.